5thamendment
Latest
Massachusetts Supreme Court says it can order you to decrypt your computer
Say you get arrested, your computer is seized and state wants to peek at the encrypted data hidden away on your machine's hard drive. Can it force you to decrypt your computer? Traditionally, the answer has been no: courts have previously ruled that ordering a defendant to decrypt their data was tantamount to self-incrimination -- a violation of their 5th amendments rights. The Massachusetts Supreme Court sees things differently, and has recently ordered a defendant to decrypt his machine because the pertinent data's presence on the computer was a "foregone conclusion." In other words, if the police already know the data they are looking for is there, it doesn't count as new testimony and is not protected by the 5th amendment.
Authorities decrypt laptop without defendant's help, Fifth Amendment need not apply
Constitutional junkies have had their eyes on Colorado for awhile now, because a federal judge there ordered a woman to decrypt her hard drive in a criminal trial. This, despite her cries that doing so would violate her Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The argument is now moot, as authorities have managed to access the laptop's data without any aid from the defendant, thereby obviating any Constitutional conundrums. Who knows if the feds found the evidence of bank-fraud they were looking for, or whether it was brute force or a lucky guess that did the trick, but at least we can say it's the last of the laptop-related Fifth Amendment court cases for awhile, right?
Court upholds Fifth Amendment, prevents forced decryption of data
When our forefathers were amending the constitution for the fifth time, they probably didn't have TrueCrypt-locked hard drives in mind. However, a ruling from the 11th Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the right of an anonymous testifier to not forcibly decrypt their data. The case relates to a Jon Doe giving evidence in exchange for immunity. The protection afforded to them under this case wouldn't extend to any other incriminating data that might be found, and as such Doe felt this could lead to violation of the fifth amendment. The validity of the prosecution's demands for the data decryption lies in what they already know, and how they knew it -- to prevent acting on hopeful hunches. The prosecutors were unable to demonstrate any knowledge of the data in question, leading the 11th Circuit to deem the request unlawful, adding that the immunity should have extended beyond just the current case. This isn't the first time we've seen this part of the constitution under the digital spotlight, and we're betting it won't be the last, either.
